If it was mine and I spent the funds that Turnbull charges for an accurate restoration, I'd make it 100% accurate. I'd want it to BE a .22 Short, and not just marked .22 Short.

There's something to that, although after going through Doug's shop, it will never be mistaken for a gun in original condition. Therefor, those who might spurn it for being a non-original chambering, would probably also spurn it for being refinished. If your ultimate object is shooting the gun, not creating a wall-hanger or safe-queen, I'd choose the cartridge that offers the best potential for the kind of shooting you expect to be doing with it.

If it was mine and I spent the funds that Turnbull charges for an accurate restoration, I'd make it 100% accurate. I'd want it to BE a .22 Short, and not just marked .22 Short.

There's something to that, although after going through Doug's shop, it will never be mistaken for a gun in original condition.

One would think so, but that's not been the case. A few years back Don Anderson (past MFCA President) had an 1893 Marlin that he sent off to a large auction house to sell. The gun appeared to be minty, and Don bought it as an unfired, or barely fired original. Doug Turnbull was at the auction, and thought he recognized the rifle as one he might have done. He called his shop and had them check the serial number, and confirmed it was indeed a gun he'd restored 20 years earlier! A lot of experts had looked that gun over many times before and declared it was a gorgeous original specimen. The auction house announced the gun was a Turnbull restoration, and the $10k reserve was lifted, and the gun would be sold at whatever it got. The gun still reached the $10k reserve, with everyone knowing it was a restoration by Turnbull.

One would think so, but that's not been the case. A few years back Don Anderson (past MFCA President) had an 1893 Marlin that he sent off to a large auction house to sell. The gun appeared to be minty, and Don bought it as an unfired, or barely fired original. Doug Turnbull was at the auction, and thought he recognized the rifle as one he might have done. He called his shop and had them check the serial number, and confirmed it was indeed a gun he'd restored 20 years earlier! A lot of experts had looked that gun over many times before and declared it was a gorgeous original specimen. The auction house announced the gun was a Turnbull restoration, and the $10k reserve was lifted, and the gun would be sold at whatever it got. The gun still reached the $10k reserve, with everyone knowing it was a restoration by Turnbull.

Amazing, but Gary Quinlan told me there's a group of fat-cat "collectors" who like old-timey guns, but want them looking brand-spanking new (like everything else they own)!But the incident speaks volumes about the quality of Doug's work--when a gun with 0% original finish brings as much as one thought at first to be all-original; would be interesting to know the cost of that restoration.

Though I fully appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into such work, if I was offered a choice between that kind of restoration and a "good clean gun, used but not abused," I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter; that is, if the condition of the gift was that the restoration could not be sold!

I totally agree! I'd much rather have an honest gun showing use than a fully restored gun. But when I have had beaters I restored, I don't try to age them and fake the restoration. The quality of some folks doing restoration work in recent years has really changed the feelings towards restored guns for many people. There are other guys doing work as good or better than Turnbull, and all of it is scary good! Makes me afraid to even look at a minty gun these days, as I assume they're all restored now!